Abortion.What do you think about it?

Spendi's an unapologetic and trogloditic misogynist. It's never worth one's while to respond to the hatred he pukes up about women.

Spendius - check out Snood's post.

No woman ever had to make these sorts of decisions because of anything I ever did.

I respect women.

But then the anti-abortionist solution -- to assign the beginning of life to conception -- is no less arbitrary (and no less paradoxical).

flushd wrote-

Quote:

Spendius - check out Snood's post.

I don't need to.

He's on the side of the angels.

Paradoxical to you perhaps unless you are willing to look at the medical evidence.

The medical evidence that a distinct, separate life begins at conception is strong.

Distinct--The unborn is not 'a part of the mother's body' , he/ she has a unique DNA structure not shared by his mother.

Alive--He/she is alive in every sense of the word, his body is growing, cells dividing making new cells, etc. He/she has a heart that beats and circulates blood, (his own blood, not his mother's) through his body before the end of the 4th week -- before many women even know they are pregnant. Brain waves as early as the 6th week.

At least two distinguished groups of physicians have weighed in on this.

The AAFP is on record as regarding the unborn as a separate patient.

The ACOG is on record that from conception, the child is a living, separate person.

I have posted these links several times, I invite you to look at them, or even better do your own research.

If you do not believe the medical evidence, and are still unsure that a living human being is the issue: let me ask you (since you regard it as 'paradoxical') does it not make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to life?

Unless you can firmly establish overriding evidence that contradicts what the medical community has offered, isn't the most prudent course to proceed as if a living human being MAY be at stake, until you can show beyond doubt that it is NOT?

real life wrote:

Paradoxical to you perhaps unless you are willing to look at the medical evidence.

The medical evidence that you are referring to is largely irrelevant.

real life wrote:

The medical evidence that a distinct, separate life begins at conception is strong.

Distinct--The unborn is not 'a part of the mother's body' , he/ she has a unique DNA structure not shared by his mother.

Alive--He/she is alive in every sense of the word, his body is growing, cells dividing making new cells, etc. He/she has a heart that beats and circulates blood, (his own blood, not his mother's) through his body before the end of the 4th week -- before many women even know they are pregnant. Brain waves as early as the 6th week.

So what? Why does it make a difference whether the fetus is alive or not?

real life wrote:

At least two distinguished groups of physicians have weighed in on this.

The AAFP is on record as regarding the unborn as a separate patient.

The ACOG is on record that from conception, the child is a living, separate person.

I have posted these links several times, I invite you to look at them, or even better do your own research.

Again, why does it matter?

real life wrote:

If you do not believe the medical evidence, and are still unsure that a living human being is the issue: let me ask you (since you regard it as 'paradoxical') does it not make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to life?

Why does it matter?

real life wrote:

Unless you can firmly establish overriding evidence that contradicts what the medical community has offered, isn't the most prudent course to proceed as if a living human being MAY be at stake, until you can show beyond doubt that it is NOT?

No, certainly not. My position on abortion does not rest on the supposition that the fetus is not a living human being. For all I know (or care), a fetus is a living human being from the moment of conception. Establishing that as a medical fact wouldn't change my position on abortion one whit.

But, to clarify your position, let me ask you this: if it were proven, beyond all possible doubt, that a fetus (or blastocyst or embryo) is not a living human being, would you then be in favor of abortion?

Hello. Let me start off saying I never had an abortion; I had fifteen pregancies, four spontanious abortions (in other words I didn't do anything to cause it, it just happened) and eleven live births.

I'm glad I didn't have abortions, because even if circumstances were difficult at times, they worked out and there isn't a single child I would want to give up.

But I do believe a woman should have the right to choose. Until the spirit takes over the body, the fetus, especially in the early stages, is not yet a human being. So it isn't murder. If you took an embryo and cloned it many times, then "killed" some of the clones, is that murder? No. Stupid maybe.

Until the "life force" the spirit actually enters and takes over the body, you don't have a human to kill. You just have a little tadpole, so to speak.

And hey, I don't like to kill little tadpoles either. But if I knew that I couldn't support or give a child love and care, or if it was the result of a rape I couldn't live with because of the reminder, I might be tempted to have an abortion.

Being me, I probably wouldn't choose an abortion in any case. But not everyone looks at life the same way. If a pregancy is going to ruin all one is trying to achieve, perhaps it would be better to abort (early). I just think a woman should have the right to choose. It is her life first.

The scary part of your position is your apparent assertion that , living human or not, it is ok with you to kill. Do you hold that human life is of no value whatever, or just that if one becomes inconvenient to another then the stronger has a right to dispose of the weaker?

I could be sticking my foot in my mouth but all this "separate DNA" stuff as a basis for "life" is puzzeling me.
Cancer cells have their own DNA. So do virus'. So do a million bacteria that can infect a human body.
Before anyone gets all livid moaning that the "unborn" are not "cancer"....
Well, duh.
But they each have their own separate DNA and they depend on the host for replication.
Of all the anti-abortion arguements this one seems really, really weak.

joefromchicago wrote:

But, to clarify your position, let me ask you this: if it were proven, beyond all possible doubt, that a fetus (or blastocyst or embryo) is not a living human being, would you then be in favor of abortion?

Yes.

If you can show medically that destroying the unborn is no different than removing a mole, or wart, etc then obviously it is a medical procedure with no moral consequence.

This should be especially important to the non-religious (those who do not believe in the existence of a 'soul' or 'spirit' and who think that the physical/chemical/biological/genetic component of a person is all there is) because there should be NO doubt for those folks that a complete human being is present.

The ones that you would expect to be UNcertain are the religious or those who believe in the existence of a 'soul' or 'spirit'. The possible unanswered question for them is 'has the body been given a soul yet?'

The scary part of your position is your apparent assertion that , living human or not, it is ok with you to kill. Do you hold that human life is of no value whatever, or just that if one becomes inconvenient to another then the stronger has a right to dispose of the weaker?

The fact that you and some of the others on your side of this question can actually convince yourselves that your position shows more respect for women than the position of those of us on the other side of the issue.

I could be sticking my foot in my mouth but all this "separate DNA" stuff as a basis for "life" is puzzeling me.

Cancer cells have their own DNA. So do virus'. So do a million bacteria that can infect a human body.

Before anyone gets all livid moaning that the "unborn" are not "cancer"....

Well, duh.

But they each have their own separate DNA and they depend on the host for replication.

Of all the anti-abortion arguements this one seems really, really weak.

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

But, to clarify your position, let me ask you this: if it were proven, beyond all possible doubt, that a fetus (or blastocyst or embryo) is not a living human being, would you then be in favor of abortion?

Yes.

If you can show medically that destroying the unborn is no different than removing a mole, or wart, etc then obviously it is a medical procedure with no moral consequence.

But again I ask: why does that matter? You're not suggesting that no one is ever justified in killing another human being, even an "innocent" human being, are you? After all, most moral theories hold that we are morally justified in killing people (i.e. the post-born) under certain circumstances. For instance, suppose you are the survivor of a shipwreck. You are clinging to a piece of wood that is sufficient to bear your weight but not anyone else's. Someone else swims over and attempts to grab onto your piece of wood. If he succeeds, both of you will certainly drown. Are you justified in repelling him, even if that means he will drown?

real life wrote:

This should be especially important to the non-religious (those who do not believe in the existence of a 'soul' or 'spirit' and who think that the physical/chemical/biological/genetic component of a person is all there is) because there should be NO doubt for those folks that a complete human being is present.

It doesn't matter to me at all. For all I care, the fertilized ovum can be wearing a three-piece suit and reading the poetry of Rilke. It makes no difference.

real life wrote:

The ones that you would expect to be UNcertain are the religious or those who believe in the existence of a 'soul' or 'spirit'. The possible unanswered question for them is 'has the body been given a soul yet?'

Well, some religions believe in "ensoulment," others don't. But I have no interest in such idle metaphysical speculations.

real life wrote:

The scary part of your position is your apparent assertion that , living human or not, it is ok with you to kill. Do you hold that human life is of no value whatever, or just that if one becomes inconvenient to another then the stronger has a right to dispose of the weaker?

I certainly hold that humans have value -- indeed, the highest moral value -- but that doesn't mean we still can't kill them under certain circumstances.

I've offered this hypothetical before, but it seems like a good time to do it again:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?

Under these circumstances, are you required to provide life support to the violinist?

For instance, suppose you are the survivor of a shipwreck. You are clinging to a piece of wood that is sufficient to bear your weight but not anyone else's. Someone else swims over and attempts to grab onto your piece of wood. If he succeeds, both of you will certainly drown. Are you justified in repelling him, even if that means he will drown?

It doesn't matter to me at all. For all I care, the fertilized ovum can be wearing a three-piece suit and reading the poetry of Rilke. It makes no difference.